Originally posted by nugget:I should of previewed my last post, it should have said "Those people who can not make it if there is a smokeing ban can just open a different business, just like a bartender can get a different job."

Canada, no federal policy, but all ten provinces and two of three territories restrict smoking in public places.

* Manitoba, New Brunswick, Newfoundland and Labrador, the Northwest Territories, Nunavut, and Saskatchewan have banned indoor smoking including in bars. * Ontario and Quebec have passed smoking bans in their legislatures which will take effect in 2006. Many cities also have by-laws restricting smoking:

* Belleville, May 1, 2003 banned in public places. Limited designated smoking areas in restaurants, bowling alleys, pool halls, bingo halls until 1 May 2006, when all public places in Ontario will be smoke free.[2][3] * Guelph, July 1995 banned in public areas with a gradual phase-in for restaurants until 2000. [4] * The Greater Toronto Area phased in a complete smoking ban for all enclosed public spaces from 1999-2004. * Region of Waterloo, 1 January 2000 smoking ban in all public places. Fine $250. [5]

In Manitoba, when they first passed the no smoking ban, it felt so WEIRD to go into a restaurant and not be asked, "Smoking or Non-Smoking." Now, you are asked, "How many people in your party? Any place special you would like to be seated?"

Originally posted by MJ Welch:In Manitoba, when they first passed the no smoking ban, it felt so WEIRD to go into a restaurant and not be asked, "Smoking or Non-Smoking."

When I am with my grandson I answer, "I have a child with me. It's child abuse to make a child ibreath smoke." "oh, so you want non-smoking?" Duh, yes. When I'm alone or with other adults I sday "I have lungs and I'd like to keep them."

BTW, I have no friends who smoke. I don't think I could handle being around a smoker.

Nell

More women die of lung cancer than breast cancer. If you smoke, quit. If you don't, don't start.

Originally posted by logic1:abnerman...........why is it ignorant to disagree with YOUR point of view? you smoke, (which is ignorant anyway you look at it) he doesn't. WHO IS the smart one?????

[b]I think we all know the answer to that question!! [/b]

I have no problem with Nugget not agreeing with me. And I agree that smoking is unhealthy and that non-smokers are obviously smarter for not doing it. I respect other people's choices and opinions, and I make an effort to understand different points of view and discuss our differences.

I don't openly repeatedly wish DEATH on people because I don't care for their habits. I stand by my remark.

The early bird may get the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese....

Since our smoking ban went into effect across the province of Manitoba, they also put into effect NO SMOKING WITHIN 15 FEET of entrances to buildings. People hated going through the fog of smokers standing just outside the business to get their daily "dart."

Business' have also realized the negative "optics" and their employees have to smoke outside in concealed areas unaccessable and unseen by the public.

I am glad I no longer have to take my nieces and nephews through a haze of smoke as we go into the Mall for their Dairy Queen treats.

No one stopped going to the bar, people still gamble, life goes one, mind you, it goes on heathier and arguably longer for non-smokers.

The smokers are KILLING THEMSELVES and everyone around them, with every smoke filled breath they exhale and then they share that smoke with those around them, I was being kind, as I know from personal experience that smoking related cancer deaths are LONG, SLOW, and incredibly painful. If my dogs or horses were sick with cancer I would be merciful and have them put out of their pain. I also have a living will for myself. If smokers did not share the smoke, a lot of medical expenses could be rerouted to other things. Can you even imagine the revenue that would be able to be redirected. What is so hard to understand? I REFUSE to feel sorry for people who knowingly and willingly inflict pain and suffering on themselves and those around them. When I see an adult in a car, smoking, with a child or two in the car, it makes me so angry!!!!!!!!!! With all the information available about the dangers of smoking ciggerettes and the second hand smoke dangers, I do not understand those who CHOOSE to do that to themselves and those around them. Smokers do not care if I live or die as a result of their habit, why should I care if they die. The sooner they do not smoke around me the better, I do not care how they quit, internal strength or death, which ever ends the smoke.

What I find hard to believe is that no one disagreed with the post about the "businesses that can not make it if a smoking ban were in place could just open a different business, like a bartender or waitpersons could just find a different job." Owners that allow smoking tell their employees everyday that they do not give a rats fuzzy behind if they get cancer or not, and those same places of employment very rarely offer any kind of health insurance, they relie on EVERYONE elses tax dollars to provide health care costs to the employees whos health is unimportant to the owner. Long term, please try to think long term, the effects of our actions now really do have long term effects. Try to think about the future not just the present. If you smoke, stop, if you smoke around others and share your poison, stop, it really is so simple. STOP, smoking and sharing your smoke!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! It is poison to all that have to breath it.

Nugget, I too agree that people (most) that smoke do not care what they are doing to themselves & are very inconsiderate to others. I do however, think that "wishing" death on others is a very poor way to address this issue.

I also wish that I did not have to nurse, and watch my friend die from second hand smoke related illnesses and watch the family who never had a smoker in it deal with a death that someone else (a smoker) caused without any thought or caring about the ones around them. With every puff and exhale smokers are doing the same, only they are not just wishing, they are killing people, so I may not be politicaly correct with my wishes, I however am not the one who IS actually kiling people, I am wishing the MURDERS a quick and less painfull death then my friend had. Wishs and actions are to different things. Smokers really do cause illnessand death. My wishes do not, as of yet anyway. I am angry, can you tell? We try to pull drunk drivers off the roads because they cause serious health issues, even death, but those are things that happen in an instant, second hand smoke takes a lot longer to kill someone; but it is not considered a crime to kill someone that way. Why not? The person who killed my friend with second hand smoke is free and walking around helping to kill more, and my friend is dead. Yea, that is fair!!!!!!!!!!!!! :confused:

Nugget, I sympathize with your situation & no it is not fair that a person who chose to not smoke is gone because of inconsiderate people. I just think is is very unhealthy (for you) to have this hatred in you. I don't blame you at all for being angry - I am angry with this whole smoking issue also. I can only hope that people will wake up soon.

Logic1, Thank you for understanding and listening. Maybe, smokers out there who ARE killing/murdering others with second hand smoke will think twice about lighting up around nonsmokers. PLEASE, do not make us nonsmokers breath YOUR poison!!!!

Well, "we" made it into the paper. Page 15 of the current issue has a piece titled "Scheduled Discussion Goes Up In Smoke" recommending that everyone tune in to the continuing discussions on this thread. Unfortunately, the piece showed huge editorial bias to those that favor a smoking ban of some sort, quoting at length from some who prefer a ban. This position should come as no surprize to any of us on the board since our "moderator" from Appleton has contributed what must be a record 19 posts to this thread. As usual, you can expect equal treatment from the Leader as long as you agree with their editorial position. Journalism at its very best....once again. When the "free meal" offered by smoking ban advocates as a cover for what was billed as an open discussion of the smoking issue was turned down by the 800 invited guests in Tomahawk, the Leader points to this thread as evidence that there is some controversy about it localy. Oh by the way, in case you failed to read the piece....the event was canceled due to lack of interest. At least they had the courtesy to put the article on the editorial page although how the canceling of an event for complete lack of interest is worthy of news coverage I will never understand. I would go on, but I left my cigar burning out on the deck and need to get back to it.

Dave, are you actually implying that a smoking ban is not an issue? One attempt to make it more public, does not prove a thing. It was actually not well publicized in the first place. Whether you agree or disagree a smoking ban, of some sort will happen. It is just a matter of time. Unfortunately, it is taking too long.

Our family was signed up for the meeting, we recieved a call cancelling due to lack of interest. We were astonded. If only 20% of the population smoke, I thought at least the people who did not smoke would be interested in how to help stop the sharing of second hand smoke. If they even gave it a small amount of thought about the money it cost us as a country, to pay for the medical expenses that are related to second hand smoke maybe more would have signed up. I do not know what it cost each person but I do believe it is a large amount. Someone with access to that information should do a study and release that information to the public. Money talks as the saying goes.

P.S. I went back and counted, with this post I have 23 total. With five pages of posts I believe this is an important issue and it needs to be addressed. To the smokers out there reading this, be prepared, because us non smokers will not let this issue die and we will win!

Somehow my opinion in Appleton, which hadn't been discussed with anyone at the Leader any time recently is automatically the opinion of the newspaper too. Cool, I must have some clout. I haven't even opened the paper but if you said it was on the Editorial page that means it CAN be biased (kind of the idea behind the editorial page, ehh)! If it was on the front page then both sides have to be equally shown and discussed. Toss in the fact that we're working on getting more people involved in the message boards which might explain the reference to this thread (again, I haven't read it yet).

Ideally, I'd like to see as many people as possible using this forum to discuss the issues of the area, etc. The more opinions and information different people post the more informed of a decision you can make. Someone may post an idea or thought that had never crossed my mind.

Additionally, at least the Leader is open and active enough to allow discussion on topics with very little interference. The "large" newspapers I work for at a Fortune 500 media group don't seem to trust their readers enough to do that. To comment on a story or editorial in our papers you must either submit a letter, call in something really short or use their comment system. Their comment system sends an email to the paper so they can read, edit and approve the comment and then if they feel like it they "might" post it to the web eventually.

Originally posted by Kerry Tobin: Ideally, I'd like to see as many people as possible using this forum to discuss the issues of the area, etc. The more opinions and information different people post the more informed of a decision you can make. ..........Additionally, at least the Leader is open and active enough to allow discussion on topics with very little interference. The "large" newspapers I work for at a Fortune 500 media group don't seem to trust their readers enough to do that.

Kerry, I for one really appreciate this board. You do a good job running it. You are right, most large newspapers do not offer such boards.

Nell

More women die of lung cancer than breast cancer. If you smoke, quit. If you don't, don't start.

I really get a chuckle from Larry Tobins editorials. When we are talking gun control he goes ballistic and is against it. When the DNR regulates his hunting he against it because he thinks he knows more about it than they do. But he doesn't smoke so it is ok to ban or regulate that. Is that a case of don't mess with my rights and the things I like, but it is ok to mess with others. A bit two faced isn't it?

Old Scout makes another great point and brings us back to the real issue here once again. That issue is and always has been the rights of property and business owners to regulate what goes on in their establishments and the rights of each individual to make personal choices. No one is arguing about the health benefits/risks associated with smoking, but we do not need the government regulating yet another facet of our already over-regulated lives. I would certainly support making it mandatory that establishments post a sign on the door indicating whether smoking is allowed or not allowed in the building. Then Nell, Logic and Kerry could read the sign, turn around, and go elsewhere like the intelligent individuals that they are. Each of us would be free to make his or her own decision rather than having the government make it for us. Next thing you know, the "do-gooders" will want to specify what can and cannot be on the menu down at the Pine Tree, all in the interest of the health of the patrons. After all, the clogged arteries caused by the Friday night fish extravaganza certainly kill a lot more people than the second hand smoke ever will.

Originally posted by nugget:Logic1, Thank you for understanding and listening. Maybe, smokers out there who ARE killing/murdering others with second hand smoke will think twice about lighting up around nonsmokers. PLEASE, do not make us nonsmokers breath YOUR poison!!!!

Nugget, evidently someone that you know died of cancer. And I'm very sorry to hear that. I really am.

But you obviously need to get. a. grip. on reality.

People are not "murderers" because they smoke, and I am starting to take personal offense from your constant personal stereotypes and general hatred for people who choose to smoke.

AS I SAID, I am a very considerate smoker. And I constantly go out of my way not to expose cigarette smoke to any child, or anyone who do not smoke in public places where they do not CHOOSE to be around smoke. I won't argue the poor judgement of smokers, and the health problems that smoking can cause. It's an addiction, it sucks, and I won't make excuses for my bad habit on a personal level. But I won't be attacked for it either..

Last night, I went to a bar... (a bar that did not enforce a smoking ban).. and I had a cigarette WHENEVER I felt like I wanted to do so (as did every other smoker in the bar). And if someone HAD a problem with being around it, THEY had the choice to go away. THEY had the choice not to be "murdered" by the smokers. THEY were there because they chose to be.

- If the owners of the bar would rather not have smokers in their business, THEY should have the right to decide it. - If they welcome people who smoke, THEY should have the right to decide it.

The early bird may get the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese....